Pages

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

PETA: Breast is Best

Will PETA never come to the end of their lunacy? I have been posting about the various ways in which PETA has used sexism to sell their message against cruelty to animals. They have continually sexualized women, see here, here, andhere. In their latest assault they have suggested that Ben & Jerrys switch from cows milk to breast milk. It seems that they are concerned about the living conditions, and the cruelty that dairy cows undergo to provide milk for our population. The solution is not to speak to people and get them to boycott dairy products....oh no...we should hook women up to machines, and get them to pump the milk that we need.

Like all mammals, cows only produce milk during and after pregnancy, so to be able to constantly milk them, cows are forcefully impregnated every nine months. After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup... Because male calves can't produce milk, dairy farmers take them from their mothers immediately after birth and sell them to veal farms, where they endure 14 to17 weeks of torment chained inside a crate so small that they can't even turn around.

I truly understand why there is a need to raise attention to this issue. No animal should be forced to endure inhumane conditions to sustain a human desire. What I find equally galling, is that PETA continually has no issue privileging animals over women. Social change on the backs of women is not social change, it is just reaffirming a social hierarchy wherein women are already marginalized and exploited.

The breast is best! Won't you give cows and their babies a break and our health a boost by switching from cow's milk to breast milk in Ben and Jerry's ice cream? Thank you for your consideration.

The solution for animal cruelty is for women to turn into dairy cows for the nation. Of course unlike animals, using women for their milk would not be in the least bit exploitative? Women were born to lactate, so why not just use us to make sure everyone gets their daily dose of calcium.

Cows are suffering so let us not take a moment to consider that if this insanity was actually instituted, that it would be the poor women that would be turned into lactating slaves. I pity the dairy cow, but I pity more the woman that would reduced to this state.

Whether it is to titillate the palate of the rich, or to end the suffering of dairy cows, it is not acceptable to exploit women in this fashion. This is literally eating the other. The idea that womens bodies can be and should be consumed in this fashion creates us as slaves to biology, and further marginalizes women that subsist in poverty.

The more I see of PETA, the more disgusted I become. There is no level that they are unwilling to sink to. While their goals may be laudable, they are lost behind the misogyny that is used to transmit the message. I may believe in the value of an animal, but I have a far deeper commitment to women.

398 comments:

I am so sick of PETA, and those Go Veg fools are no better. Did you see the half naked girls rep'ping them on Howard Stern a long while back? That was pathetic. My wife was raised vegetarian, and even she thought it was silly. Why not promote the health issue, instead of the chest and legs issue.

I despise fanatics of any stamp; and agree completely with your sentiments here. Its astonishing that they don't see (care?) the dichotomy between forcing human lactatation instead of bovine as something to be desired.

PETA pulled a similar stunt a couple of years ago, with ads that showed strippers taking off their clothes to reveal cow udders, which they then used to spray milk into gawping men's faces.... NOT COOL PETA!!

Um...I think it's ironic. It's making fun of that very idea. The point is the way we treat animals is completely connected to how we look at women as well--as objectified commodities. it's also a question of can you imagine if we hooked women up to machines and pump them full of so many hormones so that they would get crazy infections and then have to bleach out the blood and pus in the milk you drink because of it? it would be insane. and it is just as insane when we do it to animals.

Anonymous, I worked for PeTA many years ago, and I can guaran-fucking-tee you they are not attempting any commentary on sexist treatment of women.

Every single time I brought up the issue of their sexist advertising campaigns, it was brushed off, Every time I suggested a savvy clever way to use naked men in an ad campaign, it was brushed off, when the group Feminists for Animal Rights raised the issue of sexism with them, they were brushed off.

PETA has this silly notion that the way to help animal rights is to lower humans--especially women-- to the level of the animal, instead of raising up the animal. Their sexist campaigns continuously frustrate me, and certainly does not endear me to their ideals.

As for the Swiss man substituting human dairy for cow: it's not inherently exploitation as you suggest. If so, you would say the same of any producer of staples. The cotton grower sells his cotton for less than the cloth that is made from it is sold for. He's exploited! The omelet maker sells his wares for more than the person who produced the eggs. She's exploited! So saying that the women are being exploited just because they're at a lower rung in the production latter is ridiculous. Although, I do agree with you that these women are probably in the poorer class, and in that there might be some exploitation.

@Dizzy in terms of labor exploitation I take a Marxist perspective. Since Marx is considered one of the greatest thinkers of all time I would hardly call it ridiculous or even outlandish. As I have said over and over again..the value of labor is not what a person is paid but what it sells for on the open market.

the funny part is that hunting or eating burgers is advertised as a "Macho" thing. so does peta understand that maybe it's better to fight the "macho" attitude that links meat to manhood? That would help animals and help the human society.

PETA is disgusting! This goes back to our values in society and how we lift the man up on high and abort the Goddess. When we actually start to truly value women and not exploit/marginalize them then we will be valuing ourselves.

Did you visit PETA's blog? One comment by a Canadian (I mention that so you can find it easily) woman talks about sexualizing advertising for the use of breastmilk. Further objectivication of this very natural process is exactly what we don't need.

@Elaine...I posted the letter from PETA therefor anyone can read it and I was not dishonest. If I wanted to spin the story I never would have posted the letter. Hooking cows up to machines is exactly how we get milk do you think the process would be any different for women? They would have to pump milk, hence being hooked up to a machine. Seems pretty simple to me.I expressed solidarity with the idea of animal cruelty however I will never accept that it is acceptable to diminish women in anyway to reach a political objective. PETA is a sexist, misogynistic organization and until they stop exploiting women I will continue to call them on it.

Since Marx is considered one of the greatest thinkers of all time I would hardly call it ridiculous or even outlandish. As I have said over and over again..the value of labor is not what a person is paid but what it sells for on the open market.

And as I've told you before, the labor theory of value has been discredited. It implied a contradiction with observed facts (that the profits of industries with different proportions of labor use would have different rates of profit, when in fact they do not) which Marx ultimately resolved by abandoning the labor theory of value.

You've misinterpreted PETA's letter. I believe you've done that deliberately in order to make a case to privilege feminism over animal rights (or ignore animal rights entirely) and demonize PETA.

The letter isn't really encouraging Ben & Jerry to use human breast milk. It's just a publicity stunt to make people think about the cows and the gender issues related to how we treat nonhumans: forceful impregnation, stealing babies, killing males, turning females into milk machines...

From the PETA blog:"We explained that using cow's milk for their ice cream is a hazard to consumers' health. Even Dr. Spock spoke out against feeding cow's milk to children, saying it may play a role in the onset of anemia, allergies, and juvenile diabetes and, in the long term, can set kids up for a lifetime of obesity and heart disease (America's number one cause of death). [...]We here at PETA would be super-stoked if your ice cream went vegan … we'd buy it by the truckload!"http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/09/breast_is_best.php

For the record, human breastmilk is only considered vegan if it's freely given without force or coercion.

And regarding calcium... cow's milk is not a great source because the calcium in milk is not well-absorbed by the human body. The high animal protein in dairy makes it difficult for humans to absorb the calcium. It's better to get calcium from plant sources or fortified foods. Good calcium sources: calcium-fortified soy milk and juice, calcium-set tofu, soybeans and soynuts, bok choy, broccoli, collards, Chinese cabbage, kale, mustard greens, and okra.

For more details about the health of a plant-based diet, check out:http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/http://www.veganhealth.org/

@Elaine the letter is linked and people are free to read it and take whatever interpretation of it as they see fit. This is my blog and what I posted my my interpretation of this letter.

It is you who are misrepresenting the point of this post. I stated quite clearly that PETA's goals where admiral however their sexist message is intolerable. They have continually sexualized, exploited and marginalized women to make their point. If we are to believe that animals are worthy of respect why are women not entitled to the same courtesy? If PETA wants respect it needs to start respecting women.

I'm pretty upset by this whole concept. As a breastfeeding mom, how fucking dare they write a note to Ben and Jerry's suggesting they use breast milk instead of cow's milk when lactating women in most states do not have the legal right to breastfeed in public or pump at work. So the priority here should be that women should provide the milk for ice cream before being able to feed their own children in public or provide them milk at daycare?

If the result was to gross out the public once again PETA should be ashamed. There is nothing gross about breast milk and this concept is still the reason why many women never try and some women give up on breastfeeding.

Lastly, Ben and Jerry's is far from the worst offender when it comes to the treatment of dairy cows. They only use milk from cows that were not given rBGH; a hormone that causes bad side effects for cows and also caused them to stop producing milk sooner.

So once again PETA misses the mark. Oh and did I mention I am vegetarian...

Elaine...There are numerous animal-rights / veganism-advocacy orgs out there besides PETA. I don't understand why you continue to support and shill for PETA, when most of these other orgs manage to avoid exploiting women and apply social justice principles to their activism. PETA's tactics are not only offensive, but they do great harm to women, and to trans folk (as their recent ad equating trans women to being dirty and bug-ridden illustrates), and to Jews (ads that appropriate the Holocaust), and to people of color (ads that use imagery of human slavery). What does it take to open your eyes to the fact that PETA is a sexist, racist, transphobic, anti-semitic organization? Does being a vegan automatically cancel out one's oppressive acts towards humans?

Assuming PETA's intentions are what Elaine says (and ignoring the fact that intentions don't matter when someone's being offensive and oppressive), and taking the premise she offers as fact, how is it acceptable to use misogyny to demonstrate animal cruelty? Is it not remotely possible to simply explain the cruelty against animals rather than suggesting new ways to be oppressed?

BTW,

You've misinterpreted PETA's letter. I believe you've done that deliberately in order to make a case to privilege feminism over animal rights (or ignore animal rights entirely) and demonize PETA.

You should be able to make your case without claiming to read Renee's mind in the process.

And, seriously, PETA needs more demonizing. I'm sick to death of their misogynist, transphobic advertising. If they have a point, they can make it without trying to make women (cis or trans) look bad.

But take a minute to look at yourselves. Obviously you care a great deal for women's rights, or you would not be so outraged at this porposed comparison that peta is making. you have a cause, and you are speaking up for it, because you can, and it's your right.

animals have a cause too, and they have a right to live decent lives, which they are denied for the most idiotic reasons on a daily basis, but they aren't speaking up for themselves, because they can't. And for that reason, they are mamed, tortured, slaughtered, and eaten.

PETA may go to extremes at times, but it got your attention, didn't it?I bet a few of you learned a little something about milk, and the treatment of dairy cows, in a frantic quest to find more injustices to fuel your outrage.

PETA is not suggesting that you hook women up to machines. They are not trying to attack women. They are making a drastic stand, because in a world like the one we live in, that's the only way to get noticed.

just for the record, cows lactate like humans do. as in, so long as they are continually milked, they WILL KEEP LACTATING. for years. for forever. thats how it's been done for centuries. i cannot comment on the impregnantion every nine months idea - but it seems wrong, because pregnancy is one of the few things that might STOP the cow's lactation.

But take a minute to look at yourselves. Obviously you care a great deal for women's rights, or you would not be so outraged at this porposed comparison that peta is making. you have a cause, and you are speaking up for it, because you can, and it's your right.

Clearly, you didn't actually read the post or the comments.

Also, you clearly don't know how anti-oppression works, because you do not engage in anti-oppression activism by adding to and exploiting someone else's oppression. PETA's advertisements constantly objectify women and put women in the position of being herd animals all the while saying that animals shouldn't be treated this way.

You know, this is not only a horrific idea, but a stupid and poorly thought out one. I can't comment on ice cream, but I imagine PETA would promote this for all milk use?

Human milk cannot be converted to cheeses, and I think the same might be true for yoghurt. Possibly butter. The fat content is all out of whack, compared to that of animals kept for dairy use. You can use it for these purposes... if you add cream from cows/sheep/goats milk first!

Whole human milk has plenty of fat, the same amount as cow's milk at 4%. (Just ask the surgical nurse who wanted to throw away a bottle of my milk because it was "all congealed"!)

It's the different protein from cow's milk that causes the lack of cheesability. Cow's milk is very casein-heavy, which is what makes hard cheeses possible (and, by the by, is thought to be part of the issue with the higher risk of type I diabetes in children who were fed formula.)

Think about what it is that makes the idea of human breastmilk so unappealing as an ice cream ingredient. And then ask yourself if PETA is really responsible for creating that fear of the feminine.

Really? You really want to argue that PETA, an organization filled with self-identified feminists, caused our sexist and misogynist society? You really want to - as you consume cows' milk - claim that you perfectly understand PETA's perspective? You really want to act as if you can interpret this one letter accurately without engaging in a serious discussion with a single PETA member?

YOU are the one who chose to react to PETA's breastmilk letter and NOT react to the PETA undercover video of a pig slaughterhouse where this happens:

* A supervisor shoved a cane into a sow’s vagina, struck her on the back about 17 times, and then struck another sow.

* A supervisor kicked a young pig in the face, abdomen, and genitals to make her move and told PETA’s investigator, "You gotta beat on the bitch. Make her cry."

*"Hurt! Hurt! Hurt! Hurt!" Take out your frustrations on ‘em." A worker encourages others to pretend that one of the pigs scared off a voluptuous and willing 17- or 18-year-old girl, and then beat the pig for it."

YOU are the reason these particular PETA stunts work. YOU are the one who overlooks the connection between women and animals except when YOU blame PETA. YOU are the one who acts as if it's just some magical coincidence that pig killers call the pigs "bitches" and sexualize the killings. YOU are the one who ignores the intersection of oppressions except in the few cases when you can bash PETA.

@Elaine I am only going to allow your rant for so long. Though you keep pointing the finger at me there are many self identified feminists that have a problem with the way PETA. I have expressed solidarity with the idea that animal cruelty is wrong however couching that argument in sexism, which PETA continues to do is not progressive it is ANTI-WOMAN. Period. Change by any many possible is a dangerous thing because it does not acknowledge the ways in which isms interact to marginalize and exploit certain bodies. PETA's stunts don't work, they cause people to become angry and dismiss their message. Until the day that PETA can acknowledge that 'othering' bodies for the cause is unacceptable they will continue to be viewed as a fringe lunatic group.

@Elaine I am only going to allow your rant for so long. Though you keep pointing the finger at me there are many self identified feminists that have a problem with the way PETA. I have expressed solidarity with the idea that animal cruelty is wrong however couching that argument in sexism, which PETA continues to do is not progressive it is ANTI-WOMAN. Period. Change by any many possible is a dangerous thing because it does not acknowledge the ways in which isms interact to marginalize and exploit certain bodies. PETA's stunts don't work, they cause people to become angry and dismiss their message. Until the day that PETA can acknowledge that 'othering' bodies for the cause is unacceptable they will continue to be viewed as a fringe lunatic group.

PETA's stunts don't work, they cause people to become angry and dismiss their message.

This.

It is not okay to dehumanize women in sexist ways in order to highlight animal cruelty. It is not okay to exploit any group's oppression to make a point about another group's oppression.

Since PETA exploits violence against women in order to directly link that violence to animal cruelty, I want no part of them. They're not even arguing against the violence against women, just using the imagery to sell their ideas.

why whatever can you mean, Lisa? effective activism for an actual putative cause is just like trolling! all that matters is maximum attention, no matter how you get it!

I mean I'm quite sure that the B&J campaign will have very...something...results. Imagine the possible scenarios.

*B&J smack their foreheads, realize they've been wrong all along, and promptly put themselves out of business. Or, alternately, turn their line entirely over to products made of (completely humane and non-exploitive, because plant-based products ALWAYS are!!) rice milk or soybeans or caulk or something.

*B&J take the suggestion seriously, and, pragmatic difficulties aside, it turns out to be quite the novelty product for a limited market, for about fifteen minutes or so anyway.

*customers abandon B&J in droves, because that's clearly what your average "milk person" seeing something like this is going to do, as opposed to going "christ, what a fucking bunch of assholes PETA is" and then going right back to Chunky Monkey.

*nothing substantial really changes within the dairy industry, but once again, Ingrid Newkirk, much likt the "God Warrior" for example, enjoys (again) a flurry of media attention. B&J even name their next flavor of the month after Newkirk.

Just a note - cows do dry up eventually - they do need to be reimpregnated to give milk again. There is usually a dry period during the early-mid parts of pregnancy. Goats are an animal that *sometimes* continues to lactate long after pregnancy, and sometimes can be stimulated to give milk without any pregnancy at all.Most herd animals naturally - in the wild - get pregnant each year. I look forward to seeing PETA out in the woods, attempting to distract rutting elk to keep them from being "forcibly impregnated" every spring. No doubt there's horrible exploitation of animals, but let's not make it worse than it is. And there are farms out there where animals are treated with compassion, affection, and as much effort to make their lives joyful as possible.

@Elaine...I trust you can read the title of this blog....WOMANIST MUSINGS...therefore the blog is dedicated to a black feminist perspective. This means that animal rights do not fit within that category. How wide do you think the scope of a blog should be? As for my feelings on animals you are making assumptions because I refuse to support PETA. They are a disgusting organization and do a disservice to animal rights. Throwing out accusations about how I may or may not feel are a straw womans argument.

"the blog is dedicated to a black feminist perspective. This means that animal rights do not fit within that category."

I think the scope should be a little more focused, actually. Veganism and animal rights is very relevant to this blog:http://www.blackvegetarians.org/http://www.bvsga.org/http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-1773-african-americans-could-fare-well-with-vegetarianism.htmlhttp://web.mac.com/sistahvegan98/iWeb/research/Sistah_Vegan.htmlhttp://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/

I really wouldn't have believed people were this dense. Yes. Hooking women to machines would be as bad as hooking up cows to machines. THAT'S THE POINT!

@21, Anomymous said: All that said, a lot of people need to go to the library and read their Swift. The campaign is a modest proposal, and it's an exercise in hyperbole. I imagine this went totally over the heads of 95% of the posters here.

I dislike PETA, their attempts at irony are without exception sensationalistic and insensitive/insulting to potential supporters (especially women), but this is so clearly irony/hyperbole it's ridiculous.

To spell it out: They are suggesting sarcastically that we treat women as cows so that people will see the treatment of cows as inhuman it is placed in a human context. Just as Jonathan Swift was not really suggesting in A Modest Proposal that the English aristocracy eat the children of poor Irish families. (Wiki it if you must.)

@captain calling it hyperbole or sarcasm does not remove the sexist content of the message or eliminate the responsibility on the part of the consumer to critique PETA for its actions.

@Elaine...as a WOC I will decide what is fitting for my blog The decisions I make regarding what I choose to cover and what I choose to ignore have to do with how race/gender/class/ability and sexuality intersect to create WOC as other. That is the way this blog is organized and despite the recent "fringe fundie" element that has chosen to express itself here, I will not reorder my priorities. You may scream into the wind animal, animal, animal for all I care, but there needs to be a space for WOC to express our priorities and the issues that daily effect our lives. The issue of Vegans may be a huge thing for a group of women however racism is something that all women of color must face Since I have dedicated this blog to covering the dominant issues in our lives that do not get mainstream attention, no you will not see animal rights featured. Frankly it is sad thing to hear that a dog is beaten or starved but to me it is even worse to know that this is happening to women. Do I believe in a hierarchy of beings--yes absolutely. Humans first. I don't believe in mistreating any animal but I certainly will not privilege one over a human being.

I find it extremely interesting how so many women commenting here are much more outraged by any perceived sexism than the fact that billions of sentient species are being abused, mutilated, tortured and thrown away like so much trash.

On Morgan Spurlock's FX series 30 Days, even a hunter was appalled when he was taken to a dairy farm and saw for himself the blatant cruelty. Now, this is someone who can look an animal in the eye then pull the trigger and think nothing of it; yet seeing this firsthand touched him deeply and forever changed him.

If you have anger or resentment towards PETA working 24 hours a day to make people aware of animal cruelty in whatever way they can, you might want to look inside at your own guilt, denial and self-centered existence, and ask yourself why you only have empathy or compassion for those of your own gender or species.

Note: I'm a woman and I see nothing sexist about any of their advertising; the animal cruelty message is so overwhelming and important that it completely renders the method of message used to convey it inconsequential.

@andie your argument basically comes down to the end justifies the means. I am sorry I cannot agree with that line of thinking. PETA routinely not only sexualizes women, but as I have shown in this post has uses racism, fat hate and transphobia in its so called message of uplift. If we are to understand the issue from your point of view, it would mean that we are subscribing to hierarchy wherein what happens to animal is more important than what happens to a human being. I am sorry I simply cannot agree that it is okay to dehumanize anyone for any purpose.

"Do I believe in a hierarchy of beings--yes absolutely. Humans first. I don't believe in mistreating any animal but I certainly will not privilege one over a human being."

I, too, believe in a hierarchy of beings. However, on my list, humans are closer to last than first, ranking right alongside the other viruses and parasites of the world. How else do you define a species that:

- wields its power and dominion over the rest of the animal kingdom by forcing all other species to suffer for our own amusement or satisfaction

- constantly wages wars and genocides against other peoples (and animals) in the name of religion, ethnic cleansing, resource exploitation, etc.

- objectifies and trivializes the lives of their own fellow humans in the forms of sexism, racism, classism, slavery, etc.

- refuses to adapt to and peacefully coexist to the world and the environment, choosing instead to wastefully exploit every creature and resource on the planet, as if we have some sort of "God-given right" to destroy mother nature in pursuit of our own comfort, in the name of convenience

Humans first? Ha. Like it or not, we too are part of the animal kingdom. Yes, we exploit and objectify other human beings, just as we exploit every other species and every natural resource we can get our hands on. This is just "human nature". We may be smarter than the other animals -- at least in terms of how we gauge intelligence -- but in the big picture and the grand scheme of things, we are the ones who come across as seemingly un-evolved.

Ironic, isn't it? That we're supposed to be the ones that evolved from monkeys. I don't see monkeys objectifying each other, or enslaving other species, or leveling forests, poisoning the air and water, or creating weapons of mass destruction. The fact is, our extinction will be infinitely swifter than that of the dinosaurs, and it will be at our own hands. We will probably bring most of the rest of the animal kingdom down with us, as well (except for the cockroaches, apparently).

Sorry, didn't mean to detract from the meaning or intent of this discussion. I just found it amusing that a person who has been the victim of both racism and sexism would believe that human beings are somehow better or more important than other species. What brought you to that conclusion? Is it our penchant for hypocrisy and selfish greed, or our astounding lack of compassion for the suffering of others? Or is it simply because you happen to be human, and you don't want to believe that your own species could possibly be as rotten, uncaring, detestable, and unapologetically self-absorbed as we seem?

Sure, perhaps you are an empathic person with a desire to achieve social justice. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people, however, don't care about you, me, your cause, or anything or anybody but themselves. And surely even you are prone to the occasional despicable thoughts or musings... most of us are. Hate somebody so much that you wish they were dead? Would take pleasure in seeing your enemies suffer? Hope to outperform your rivals? Would love to wield great wealth and power? Desire to have the whole world at your feet, or some other great delusion of grandeur? Sure you do. After all, "you're only human", right?

There's a reason for that expression... human = imperfect. Flawed. Sinner. We're a species that relies more on intellect than instincts, and yet our species is prone to much greater poverty, hunger, and suffering than most of the other species on the planet. 9 times out of 10, when another species is suffering, it is only by our doing. We are the only species that actually KNOWS the difference between right and wrong, and yet we consistently make the wrong decisions, time and time again (and every time expecting different results).

Consider the virus. Now, imagine that the virus has a complex mind of its own, not unlike ours. In the mind of the virus, it is only doing what it needs to in order to survive. The rights of the host? Who cares. Viruses first! So what if we make somebody a little ill. Can't put the rights of human beings ahead of virus rights. For that matter, if the cow was capable of thoughtful reflection, the cow would probably ask why its suffering is somehow more trivial than human beings. After all, what makes a human more important than a cow? Or even a virus, for that matter? The fact that we walk on two legs, and talk, and pray to mysterious beings in the sky, and build massive structures and complex tools and weapons capable of global annihalation?

I'm sorry, Renee. While I agree that PeTA's cause is far more noble than their tactics, I am going to have to disagree with your assessment of the hierarchy of species -- human beings are NOT better or more important than any other species on the planet. The very concept of a hierarchy is the entire basis for racism, classism, and sexism as we know them! How can you justify "owning" a person unless you argue that their ethnicity makes them somehow "less than human"? How can you justify objectifying members of one gender, unless you have established a social hierarchy in which that gender is considered to be less important?

Just as you sit here and say "how DARE PeTA put the rights of animals over the rights of women?", I have to respond with this: how dare you place the rights of ANY one person, ethnicity, gender, OR species above the rights of ANY other lifeform on this planet? Are you God? Did you create the species? How do you claim to know the hierarchial order of species, if there even is such a thing? Has it ever occurred to you that NO one life is more important than another? It is all LIFE. We all BREATHE and BLEED. We all BREED and SUFFER and DIE.

If you want to believe that your life is somehow more important than the life of a cow, simply by virtue of the fact that you are human and the cow is a cow, that is your right, but it is also your OPINION -- not fact. And if we are all entitled to have OPINIONS, does it not stand to reason, too, that a person of a certain race or gender might hold the OPINION that their race or gender is more important than your own, and that therefore it is perfectly acceptable to trivialize or objectify you for their amusement, in their eyes? I'm just trying to make a point here (as PeTA was apparently trying to make a similar point of their own, albeit using more radical and offensive tactics).

YOU believe that humans are more important than cows. The cows would probably disagree with you, IF THEY COULD. There is a bit of a communication problem there. I also imagine that when the Europeans were abducting the native African peoples to be sold into slavery, the African tribesmen and tribeswomen had probably tried to argue their case... unsuccessfully, as to the Europeans, they were a "primitive" people with a "primitive" language. The Europeans came in large ships, wearing fancy clothing and armed with comparatively high-tech weapons, while the Africans were living in grass huts and armed with spears. Does this mean the Europeans were "better"? Of course not. Different, yes. Better, no. Are humans better than cows? Different, yes. But not better. Better is a matter of opinion. Importance is a matter of opinion. Al Gore thinks the environment is important. Exxon-Mobil does not. Does that mean the environment is, or isn't important? Neither. The environment just IS. It's not good, or bad, or indifferent. It just is what it is. Humans are humans, cows are cows. We're not "better" because we drive cars and wear fancy clothes and communicate through intricate sounds and books and internet texts.

Is any of this getting through? Do you understand my point, and where I am going with this? No, I am not defending PeTA, nor am I villainizing them. I'm not trying to defend or villainize you, or PeTA, or the cows, or anything or anyone else. Simply making a point -- that there is no hierarchy. Nobody is "better". Nothing is "more important" than something else. Subjectively speaking? Sure. But that's a matter of opinion, of course, and not a matter of fact. Objectively speaking, there is no one quality that makes a human being better, more important, or more "special" than a cow. Just because you happen to BE one, does not give you the right to declare your superiority to a cow. Just as the fact that I am male does not give me the right to declare some sort of non-existant gender superiority as justification for objectifying YOU. Get my drift?

Sorry for the philosophical musings. I just don't care for the idea of a "hierarchy of species", or a hierarchy of anything, really. But then, that's just my opinion... and since I don't believe in hierarchies, who's to say whether or not my opinion is "better" than anyone else's?

I just realized that my statement above is a bit of a circular argument. I start off stating that I believe in a hierarchy of species, and that our species is near the bottom, and I conclude by stating that I don't believe in hierarchies of species. Here I am simultaneously holding two opposing points of view, perhaps proof of my own insanity. But then, I am "only human", and as I have already pointed out, we are prone to error and miscalculation. Even those of us who are perceived to be intelligent, are actually not intelligent at all. Intelligence itself is a false concept, dreamed up by human beings as justification for our self-classification of our species as being at the top of the food chain, so to speak. Of course, in the scope of global atrocities committed by one species against itself or against other species, we certainly take the cake. But one person's atrocity is another person's righteous expression of dominance. It's all subjective, and completely meaningless. Much like philosophy itself.

Is it acceptable to treat other human beings as objects? If it is considered acceptable for one species to objectify all other species, than certainly it stands to reason that some may see fit to express dominance in a social hierarchy over those of differing genetics, chromosomes, or social backgrounds. You say:

human being > cow

A sexist takes it one step further and declares:

male > female

Are they right? In their eyes, they are. Does it therefore make you right when you self-righteously declare that human beings are better than cows? In your eyes, perhaps. Hindus believe the cow to be a sacred animal. Christians believe humans are the only sacred animal (and they seem to resist the fact that we even are animals to begin with). So who is right? Neither one. Both arguments are subjective, and therefore objectively, neither argument holds merit.

Personally, I still think we're the worst species of animal on the planet. But that is my own subjective point of view, and you are welcome to disagree. However, that doesn't make either one of us right.

So, too, are hierarchies, or perceived hierarchies, subjective, and therefore, completely meaningless. It's all in the eye of the beholder. What you perceive as misogyny, PeTA perceives as a tactic. You may disagree with it, and rightfully so... but that doesn't prove that you're better or more important than a cow. Or vice versa.

At first I thought it was an Onion article poking at PETA's tendency to exploit the oppressions faced by peoples as a tool to highlight animal cruelty. But now--they seem to seriously enjoy doing the one step forward(animal right) four steps back(stepping on the backs of the marginalized to their own ends) dance.

So much fail on their part. Why couldn't they have rubbed two brain cells together and suggested soy milk instead?

You all are idiots. The point of using women for milk is to point out that using any being for milk is exploitive. The fact that some european decided to actually use women for milk proves their point that our society has something fundamentally wrong with it that we can view women as pure producers. But to say that exploitation radically differs from that of cows is blind ignorance either to the conditions of dairy cows or to the conditions of women. think before you typeabe

Perceived sexism you say? I agree with the previous poster in that the whole point of this was "to point out that using any being for milk is exploitive." PETA did not actually intend for us to hook women up and use their breast milk, it was purely rhetorical. The fact that anyone actually took the idea as a serious suggestion is so very pathetic. And they said "women" because---guess what!? Males don't lactate! That is why people drink milk from cows, not bulls. You might want to take a look at the Got Milk campaign's history of sexualized ads of young female celebrities sporting milk-mustaches. I'm sure you'll find that they are the ones who use sex to sell. Maybe you can rant about that?

Intense Debate Comments

About Me

I am the mother of two darling little boys that fill my life with hope. They have inspired me to help raise awareness of the issues that plague this little blue planet.
If you are looking for a blog that is all about how wonderful and rosy this world is, turn right because this space will not be for you. I am a committed humanist. I believe in the value of people over commodities. I believe in the human right to food, clothing, shelter, and education. I am pacifist, anti-racist, WOC. My truth may not be your truth, but I intend to speak it nonetheless.
Please feel free to direct questions or commentary womanistmusings@gmail.com